Examples of where single sex exemption is being used successfully?

[Darkstarrynight]

I'm planning to put forward a case for a big organisation which has set up an activity for women to, on occasion, invoke the exemption in the Equality Act to offer single sex female groups rather than just anyone who identifies as a woman.

Does anyone have concrete examples of organisations where this done and upheld please?

If not, links to a factual source which explains how this is a completely legal route?

Thank you.

Some exemptions are in the act Itself. There is published guidance too, for instance:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

Thank you @oneepisode that's perfect.

Do you know of published examples of where it's currently being applied please?

NIA are using it. They explain how here.

They are committed to this and if you contact them, I'm sure they will be able to advise you. The reality is that they will have had pushback. The fact they are still single sex evidences the legality of it. If it weren't legal, they couldn't do it.

Legal Feminist also have a good piece on this.

Thank you

Without an intrusive biological examination of all applicants I don't think it can be "used successfully".

Without an intrusive biological examination of all applicants I don't think it can be "used successfully".

I don't understand? Are you implying that male people may use a service that has been clear about the female only policy and no one would know?

For a start, that's rather a grim view of male people not respecting the chosen policy isn't it?

@MichelleofzeResistance

Without an intrusive biological examination of all applicants I don't think it can be "used successfully".

I don't understand? Are you implying that male people may use a service that has been clear about the female only policy and no one would know?

For a start, that's rather a grim view of male people not respecting the chosen policy isn't it?

I am implying that TWs possibly with a GRC and full surgery could legally use a service without declaring their biological sex. Enforcing the exemption would be no more practical than banning people with gall stones.

@Gottalife

Without an intrusive biological examination of all applicants I don't think it can be "used successfully".

Oh do you mean, unless they will get caught, it’s ok for men to break the law? What other laws do you think it’s ok to break because you think you won’t get caught? How about shoplifting if there is no CCTV? Or drinking and driving? Or raping a lone woman and claiming there was consent?

Do you really believe that people only follow the law because they might get caught?

You have a weird and very low opinion of men - this is not how decent men behave.

I am implying that TWs possibly with a GRC and full surgery could legally use a service without declaring their biological sex.
Enforcing the exemption would be no more practical than banning people with gall stones.

@Gottalife cross posted with you. My point remains. A TW with a GRC and full surgery can still legally be banned from using single sex facilities. Do you think it is ok for said TW to choose to break the law just because they think they won’t get caught?

The EA2010 permits for a service to be female only, which affects even people with a full GRC. Because it was recognised that some facilities and activities are important to be female only environments to be successful in their purpose of what they're offering to females.

Not everyone with a GRC by any means has had full surgery. If this is a suggestion that some people with a GRC would just use the service anyway despite it being made clear that this service is necessary to be female only for the benefit of the females it is serving - its a rather negative slur to cast on people with a GRC isn't it?

@MichelleofzeResistance

The EA2010 permits for a service to be female only, which affects even people with a full GRC. Because it was recognised that some facilities and activities are important to be female only environments to be successful in their purpose of what they're offering to females.

Not everyone with a GRC by any means has had full surgery. If this is a suggestion that some people with a GRC would just use the service anyway despite it being made clear that this service is necessary to be female only for the benefit of the females it is serving - its a rather negative slur to cast on people with a GRC isn't it?

It is a negative slur to misgender those with a GRC. They would be barred from both male and female spaces for different reasons. That is inhuman. I am not suggesting anything, just that the exemptions cannot be enforced without intrusive physical examination.

There's no case law on this area. In the cases where the exemption is being used nobody has challenged it in court (yet) that I am aware of. This is probably in part because of the exemption only comes into play where the person being excluded has a GRC. Where they do not have a GRC they have no right to be treated as the opposite sex in any circumstances. There are very few transwomen with GRCs so few prospective claimants. Most transpeople merely self-identify.

As to the practical application of the exemption, it is intended to be used on a case-by-case basis. So all this talk of genital examinations from Gottalife is quite odd. The truth is very few transwomen 100% pass especially in real life, and those who do not slip under the radar can be excluded in certain situations using the exemption where doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to do so.

Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is used throughout the EA2010, and basically means you've got decent reasons for the exclusion and it's not overkill when some other measure would achieve the same aim.

@HighbrowLowbrow

There's no case law on this area. In the cases where the exemption is being used nobody has challenged it in court (yet) that I am aware of. This is probably in part because of the exemption only comes into play where the person being excluded has a GRC. Where they do not have a GRC they have no right to be treated as the opposite sex in any circumstances. There are very few transwomen with GRCs so few prospective claimants. Most transpeople merely self-identify.

As to the practical application of the exemption, it is intended to be used on a case-by-case basis. So all this talk of genital examinations from Gottalife is quite odd. The truth is very few transwomen 100% pass especially in real life, and those who do not slip under the radar can be excluded in certain situations using the exemption where doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to do so.

Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is used throughout the EA2010, and basically means you've got decent reasons for the exclusion and it's not overkill when some other measure would achieve the same aim.

A sensible lucid answer. Thank you.

I recently had a mammogram. The staff involved in taking your mammogram are women, and it states that in the letter they send out.

My GP only has female staff do PAP tests, breast exams, and as chaperones.

I live in a city with a large conservative BAME population and many women would not be able to attend if there were male staff performing the tests.

the exemptions cannot be enforced without intrusive physical examination.

What you are saying is that people with a GRC would definitely not respect a service that focused on the needs of females, or the needs of females to have that specific group. And would force entry against the criteria of that particular group.

Which seems to me a very negative generalisation.

@Thelnebriati

I recently had a mammogram. The staff involved in taking your mammogram are women, and it states that in the letter they send out.

My GP only has female staff do PAP tests, breast exams, and as chaperones.

I live in a city with a large conservative BAME population and many women would not be able to attend if there were male staff performing the tests.

As a point of interest TWs who have developed breasts also get invited to the same female only clinic for mammograms. There is never any question regarding their trans status.

They would be barred from both male and female spaces for different reasons. That is inhuman.

Oh come on, step away from the drama.

Some groups need to be female only for the benefit of females. Some. Not all. There are plenty of alternatives, alternatives are being created all the time.

Your described worry about a male being barred from everything everywhere is a bit of a stretch. And lets face it, you're using it as leverage to say that females should never be allowed any female only provision regardless of female need, necessity and females, because of the possible needs of a male.

@MichelleofzeResistance

the exemptions cannot be enforced without intrusive physical examination.

What you are saying is that people with a GRC would definitely not respect a service that focused on the needs of females, or the needs of females to have that specific group. And would force entry against the criteria of that particular group.

Which seems to me a very negative generalisation.

Did I say that? No. Read my posts properly.

TWs who have developed breasts also get invited to the same female only clinic for mammograms.

Why wouldn't they

The issue mentioned was male staff because at that point female people are being required to get undressed and be intimately touched, and not all females can access breast exams under those circumstances.

Read my posts properly.

I have.

This is what you appear to be arguing: that it is impossible to gatekeep female only sessions. Which could only happen if people entering the group were doing so in defiance of the explained criteria for joining the group.

What do I have wrong here?

Did I say that? No. Read my posts properly.

You say that we have to enforce female only spaces - the only reason to have to enforce it is if males are going to try to get in.

Who are you suggesting will be trying to get in and require these 'genital checks'?

It's a bit of a giveaway that those demanding access to female spaces are also those that don't trust men to abide by rules.